Apple has thrown the book at a student who last year sold White iPhone 4 conversion kits to those sick of waiting for an official product to surface.
In November 2010, with release dates for the white iPhone 4 constantly pushed back, one fanboy's impatience got the better of him. New York teen Fei Lam ordered parts from Apple …

Wtf Apple!

Lord post

I assume that is why Apple dropped the lawsuit right away. Either they realized how bad it would look, or they just filed it to make a point in the first place: "If we wanted to, we could sue you into oblivion."

From what I understand, only the Apple logo and the iPhone trademark make it illegal; but the infringement is as clear as it could be.

He turned it white for cryin' out loud... @ AC 14:03

Re: Maybe but...

He bought the parts, and painted them, as I understand it. If the parts were stolen, that's a different matter. If Foxconn weren't meant to sell him the parts, that's more the fault of Foxconn than him.

If you bought the panel of a car, painted it a different colour and sold it, would you expect the car manufacturer to sue you?

Beware of calling other people "not exactly very bright" when it may also apply to yourself.

@AC

From the article, Apple's complaints — and my guesses at the reasoning behind them are:

"infringed upon patents and violated its trademark", i.e. manufactured (if he was painting them himself as other commenters allege) and sold equipment with the Apple logo on without permission.

"using deceptive practices in the creation and sale of the product", presumably by making some sort of claim that these were authentic Apple parts for genuine white iPhones rather than genuine black parts, repainted.

Though it's ironic that Apple appear to be using (amongst others) laws with the purpose of allowing a company to protect is reputation to sue a 17-year old who through significant initiative managed to fill a gap they'd created when they failed to ship a simple product for an extended period of time. I think they're being really stupid on this one.

titular musings

protecting trademarks can force this

much as I despise apple and pity iDrones, unfortunately the way trademark law works - use it or lose it + enforce it or lose it, it does mean that companies develop twitchy trigger fingers when it comes to setting the dogs of law onto potential infringers.

I think you're right

Indeed, I think you're right. If they let too many things slip through then they could well loose their trademarks. They have no choice but to take action. At least they dropped it immediately, probably for some minuscule fee, like $1. So they can tick the right boxes for their trademarks.

Bunch of c*****

What a bunch of c*****. They're really going after a kid. Yes, as he's in the US he's probably been able to drive for the last 10 years, but won't be able to buy a beer for another 15 or have sex for a further 5.

Would be tempted to get rid of my iPhone now, if it wasn't for the small matter of being tied in for X months.

Who?

going after the parents?

the kid was a minor

(note, IANAL) Under 18s in the US are minors. Among other things, they cannot legally enter into binding contracts, or vote, or enlist in the military, etc. Until they reach their majority, their parents are liable for the actions of the little darlings, to a large extent.

minors???

The U.S. has allowed the prosecution of 12 year olds (age at prosecution, not crime) as full blown adults. Merkins are very schizophrenic in deciding at what age a child is really a child.

They can enter into legally binding contracts. It's called employment and they are paid set wages (usually minimum and sometimes less as contract farm workers, wait staff, or in the case of an aquaintence... a bikini dancer (no nudity until 18).

They can register to vote if they'll be of age at the time of the election.

They can most certainly sign up for military service under 18 years of age.

schizo is right, but ...

Minors can be employed, under very specific conditions (limitations on hours, etc.) ... However, a minor cannot, for example, sign a contract with a mobile phone service provider ... dear mummy and daddy must do that for them. In fact, TechDirt points out that every single murkan Google user under the age of 18 may technically be violating the law: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090625/0241115358.shtml

If they want to join the military under 18, their parents MUST sign for them. Also, they cannot be deployed until they turn 18.

@ AC Re: And, Kevin Gurney

I also refuse to buy Apple products. In fact I have a rule that they are not to even come into my house. A few friends had iPhones and weren't happy about leaving them in the car, but my house - my rules. After explaining a few things to them about Apple and its wannabe tyranny, I've successfully weaned four people off of Apple products and moved them onto other brands instead. I'm currently working on a fifth, and I will keep going after that.

Just because millions of fanbois keep on buying their products does not invalidate the actions of those of us who disagree with Apple's business models and general screw-everyone attitude. Each person I wean off of Apple is one less customer to buy their next iGadget. And I'm not alone, as evidenced by some of the comments here.

Remember the old Chinese philosophy of Sil Lum Tao - the great mountain made of many small pebbles. If enough people take a few pebbles each, eventually there is no mountain left.

That's why i said 'no, not fascias'

@Giles Jones

In order to determine the legality of the kid's purchases from Foxconn, there needs to be a bit more info about that deal in the public sphere. Nobody else but YOU has such info?!? Post a link explaining why you believe the deal is illegal or figure out how to keep your mouth shut until you have some facts at your fingertips.

Apple customers are none too bright...

They NEED protection from white pieces of plastic that look like the Holy Real Thing. They might get CONFUSED while sourcing polymers from a third-party website and think the are communicating with an AppStore[tm] or even one of one of those rumored Apple Stores that bless us with their Earthly Presence.

Of course, they should inherently sense that the JOBSIANESS is not inherent in these heathen pieces of cheap chinese lookalikes and their IMPATIENCE at the obtaining the Next Holy Gimmick to clad their Holy Product caused them to stray from the path of virtuosity. The flesh is weak.

Does this seem strange?

Apple have been unable to produce a white iPhone 4 for months, yet, Foxconn, offical Apple supplier, were able to supply white iPhone4 parts, back in November.

Either these were very poor quality test samples, or Apple have been able to produce the holy grail of iPhone4's all along and have withheld them until sales started to level out, so that the super-fanbois can ditch their black ones and buy a white one... just months before the iPhone5 arrives.

Not strange at all

I doubt fabrication of the plastic shell has been the problem. From what Apple has said, they ran into significant problems with the ambient light sensor not working with white plastic rather than the black plastic. I am not sure anyone is certain how Apple addressed the problem, if it was a software change, a sensor change, or a change to the white shell. Heck, the parts this kid bought from Foxxcomm could very well be early prototypes that were scrapped.

Re: Not strange at all

I bought a white conversion kit and they do differ from the final product in several ways. Most noticeably as you can see from the picture in El Reg's article the proximity sensor above the speaker is a mesh-like rectangle. If you look at the released model on Apple's website there's a dark lozenge shape in that place, suggesting Apple had to re-design the proximity sensor by recessing it in the case (I've noticed on mine it tends to make the screen brighter in well lit areas and darker in dark areas, which for me actually works better!)

Other differences between the conversion kit and the final product are that the screens have no oleophobic coating and the Home button is not quite the same colour and it's slightly crooked (that one might be my fault, iPhones are bloody fiddly inside, I've never seen such small screws)!

I think it did take Apple an unusually long time to get the white iPhone out, but certainly their reasons for the delay jibe very closely with the flaws in the kit I bought.

Hang on a sec

Wasn't he just changing the colour of a apple product? He was not claiming it was anything other than an apple product - so why does fuckwit law apply here? All I see is an enterprising reseller - no copyright laws broken there.

Or is it that apple want to be the only ones to sell overpriced cases?

Indeed

From the small amount of information revealed here it isn't totally clear he's broken any law. It's not an obvious trademark infringement as he's clearly using the mark to refer to Apple rather than pretending to be Apple, and it's not a clear copyright/design infringement as he didn't make the parts himself. However, it looks as though somebody has infringed the copyright/design and this guy was working together with that somebody.

A title is required

"It's not an obvious trademark infringement as he's clearly using the mark to refer to Apple rather than pretending to be Apple..."

In the United States, with US trademark laws, that doesn't matter. Any unauthorized use of a trademark, even if the infringer is not claiming or pretending to be the company the trademark belongs to, is still infringement.

A lot of folks get really upset when they see stories like this, without understanding that US trademark law is written in such a way that trademark owners have little choice. Disney occasionally sues mothers who paint Mickey Mouse upon their bedroom laws or day care centers that put Donald Duck on the side of the playroom. It's the same thing.

The law specifies quite clearly that if a company owns a trademark, and the company becomes aware that someone is using the trademark but doesn't sue that person, the company can lose the trademark. This is called the "doctrine of laches" and it's a part of US trademark law (Title 15, § 1115, section B, paragraph 9), as well as trademark law in most of the various states.

It's kind of stupid; I for one would prefer trademark law to be more similar to copyright law, in which failure to act against an infringer doesn't mean you lose the copyright forever.

But unfortunately, it's not.

Trademark and patent law in the US is kind of broken. Mostly, it's broken in ways that protect the interests of big companies. When it comes to this, though, it's broken in a way that doesn't serve anyone's interests. Big companies don't like suing 17-year-old kids; even a company as famously arrogant as Apple knows that's bad publicity. But they have no choice, if they want to keep the trademark on the Apple logo.

"If we wanted to, we could sue you into oblivion."

Only because they're no decent judges around. A decent judge would take one hard look at the case and give a huge claim to the youngster. If they ran the risk of getting a judge in appeal that would slam the cuffs on them, they're eagerness to "sue you into oblivion" would soon cool down.